America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,155 comments
  • 1,823,795 views
The Dems'll probably stick with the name that fits a party that believes the candidate with more votes wins an election.

Screenshot_20210707-033953_Chrome.jpg


E5qGNOaUcAEfBzb.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Technically, The Fourth of July is an unofficial term and I suppose is used to differentiate it from just another day of the month. The actual name of the holiday is Independence Day.
 
Technically, The Fourth of July is an unofficial term and I suppose is used to differentiate it from just another day of the month. The actual name of the holiday is Independence Day.
We'd do that but most people in the US would still ask what Independence Day is and what it means, so to keep the stupid sort of not confused, we call it July 4th.
 
Chip Roy giving up what everyone has understood to be the game since the first Republican invoked "unity" during the Biden administration.
 
I know that you're not supposed to try and make sense of crazy Trump supporter ideas.






But even assuming JFK Jr. had in fact faked his aerial recreation of Chappaquiddick and has instead been in hiding for over 20 years.






Why would the person who was groomed by the Democrat party since he was in his mid-twenties to run for President (I'm guessing in 2008?).





Come out of hiding in 2024.





And be Trump's vice presidential candidate?
 
I know that you're not supposed to try and make sense of crazy Trump supporter ideas.






But even assuming JFK Jr. had in fact faked his aerial recreation of Chappaquiddick and has instead been in hiding for over 20 years.






Why would the person who was groomed by the Democrat party since he was in his mid-twenties to run for President (I'm guessing in 2008?).





Come out of hiding in 2024.





And be Trump's vice presidential candidate?
The link is soooooooo tenuous.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-jfk-jr-conspiracy-theory-854938/
How did JFK Jr. become involved?
The theory that Kennedy was alive and running Q arose in June 2018, after the anonymous poster behind Q briefly went dark. Another anonymous poster, “R,” showed up on the QAnon forums on the website 8chan and started dropping hints that JFK Jr. had faked his death to avoid being targeted by members of the deep-state conspiracy and was actually Q.

The idea gained further credence thanks to Liz Crokin, a right-wing conspiracy theorist who referred to JFK Jr.’s role as Q during a 2018 interview with vlogger Jenny Moonstone. In the video, Crokin cited Q’s posts about former President John F. Kennedy as evidence that JFK Jr. was running the account. “The way that Q talks about JFK Sr. in the posts, it is with such love and passion, it makes me think that it is someone that is close to him,” Crokin said in the video. “If JFK Jr. faked his death and was alive, it would make sense that he was Q.”
It's just someone who disappeared under mysterious* circumstances who could be claimed to head up the conspiracy without any proof ever being delivered.

*not mysterious
 
Last edited:
mysterious*
*not mysterious
Any pilot who has studied Jr's accident report (literally all of us) but believes whatever you guys are talking about (the amount of hardcore conservative pilots is obnoxious) should be considered mentally unfit by the FAA and have their medical revoked. If we're really gonna push the FAA for mental health reform this seems like a good starting point.
 
Last edited:
Trump announces that he is launching a "major class-action lawsuit" against Twitter, Google and Facebook...

Ricky Gervais Laughing GIF
He's filed the suit in Florida.
Twitter TOS
The laws of the State of California, excluding its choice of law provisions, will govern these Terms and any dispute that arises between you and Twitter. All disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum.
Facebook TOS
If a Commercial Claim between you and Facebook, Inc. is not subject to arbitration, you agree that the claim must be resolved exclusively in the US District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and that you submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim.
Google TOS
Otherwise, all claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.
Robert Downey Jr Shrug GIF by MOODMAN
 

So is he trying to argue that Facebook is an NGO or what?
America has a drinking problem.

Interesting article as from the documentaries I've seen recently America's drinking habits are less problematic than the UK's so this took me by surprise.
I'm pretty sure this is just a nanny opinion article but regardless American drinking does lead to the problem of drunk driving. Almost universally, we all drive to bars. Gotta get back somehow. Also, especially younger folks who can still handle it don't just sit in a pub with their chums and eat and drink for hours and then walk home a bit drunk. They binge drink until they're sick at bars without loud dumb music and plastic cups and it's a totally classless affair. There are numerous different drinking cultures in the US depending on the types of places people like to frequent - brewery culture is way different than bar culture. Bar culture is just trashy here.
 
So is he trying to argue that Facebook is an NGO or what?
It's Trump, so the goal here isn't likely to be known to anyone but him, if even him, but a a not insignificant part of me suspects it's all deliberately ineffectual so that he can play the victim when he loses...because he's Trump and Trump simply doesn't lose and if Trump loses it means that "they" are out to get Trump.
 
It's Trump, so the goal here isn't likely to be known to anyone but him, if even him, but a a not insignificant part of me suspects it's all deliberately ineffectual so that he can play the victim when he loses...because he's Trump and Trump simply doesn't lose and if Trump loses it means that "they" are out to get Trump.
One of the fun things to do with this lawsuit is to pretend that he's serious and see what he's asking for. Effectively he's asking the court system to legislate from the bench, which is very non-conservative. It's not really possible to argue that section 230 is unconstitutional. All 230 does is protect speech. And he's not asking for section 230 to be repealed outright, he wants something else, which is for online platforms to continue to not be liable for speech, but to be forced to carry speech uncensored. That's... I can't think of any way to describe it except legislation from the bench.

It's so very Trump to completely ignore the US system of government and just demand his outcome regardless of the impact on the structure of the system.
 
Last edited:
One of the fun things to do with this lawsuit is to pretend that he's serious and see what he's asking for. Effectively he's asking the court system to legislate from the bench, which is very non-conservative. It's not really possible to argue that section 230 is unconstitutional. All 230 does is protect speech. And he's not asking for section 230 to be repealed outright, he wants something else, which is for online platforms to continue to not be liable for speech, but to be forced to carry speech uncensored. That's... I can't think of any way to describe it except legislation from the bench.

It's so very Trump to completely ignore the US system of government and just demand his outcome regardless of the impact on the structure of the system.
I think what he's doing is basically taking a shot in the dark and hoping that the courts will be dumb enough to agree that Facebook et al are somehow governmental organizations in an effort to guarantee a public platform for his supporters and organizations to speak freely. So like you said, those companies would then be forced to carry speech. But the only sort of legislation that could possibly force that would be if courts agreed that they some constitute governmental organizations.
 
I think what he's doing is basically taking a shot in the dark and hoping that the courts will be dumb enough to agree that Facebook et al are somehow governmental organizations in an effort to guarantee a public platform for his supporters and organizations to speak freely. So like you said, those companies would then be forced to carry speech. But the only sort of legislation that could possibly force that would be if courts agreed that they some constitute governmental organizations.
I don't even know what them being a government organization would mean. It's not even clear what part of the law that's an appeal to. Either way, 230 would need amending in order to make it work, because right now it doesn't have a carve out.
 
I don't even know what them being a government organization would mean. It's not even clear what part of the law that's an appeal to. Either way, 230 would need amending in order to make it work, because right now it doesn't have a carve out.
I don't see how Section 230 enters into it. The Section 230 discourse exists solely because of this inane idea that because the provision holds that any online speaker or host of online speech isn't treated as a publisher or speaker of others, then somehow they don't have the privilege of hosting speech at their discretion.

That's how you get stupid **** like this:

...they can either be a platform, or a publisher. They can not be both. Publishers are held responsible for what they allow to be published. Platforms are not.
Where this profoundly ****ing stupid argument misses the mark is that platforms aren't held responsible as publishers of user-generated content because the users who generate said content are the publishers. Whenever you post to a website for the world to see, you're self-publishing.

And while I'm sure there are plenty who understand, I'm compelled to point out for those who aren't likely to that Section 230 isn't what permits websites to not host user-generated content...the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is.

Aaaaanywaaay...



Republicans: "CANCEL CULTURE!!!"

Also Republicans: "REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"

Also Republicans:

 
I dug through that guy's Twitter briefly, naturally full of current boogeyman words like socialism and border. But, this one stood out.
Slipping away under the cover of darkness and cutting the electricity to Bagram is no way to treat our Afghan allies taking over this airfield. How can President Biden justify this terrible decision?

To my understanding, this was done strategically to keep the enemy from finding out when we were leaving. I've read this is also not the first time we've done this and how Afghan security clearly couldn't be relied on; stories of them looting the base or tipping off Taliban intel as soon as certain troops prepared to leave. The story also speaking about how reliable Afghan intel is to not realize the entire base up and left in the middle of the night.
 
Why do so many politicians have punchable faces?

And while "cancel culture" is sort of annoying on some level, it's by no means in bed with China or Chinese Communism. If the government was censoring people, then sure, I'd agree. But when it's just a mob mentality on the Internet that's pretty far from China since the Internet is so locked down there I'm not even sure that could happen.
 
Why do so many politicians have punchable faces?

And while "cancel culture" is sort of annoying on some level, it's by no means in bed with China or Chinese Communism. If the government was censoring people, then sure, I'd agree. But when it's just a mob mentality on the Internet that's pretty far from China since the Internet is so locked down there I'm not even sure that could happen.
I've been in private arguments with some of these people and have definitely gotten the "cancel culture and critical race theory are china attacking free speech, it's just like what happened in china" claim. They completely miss that "cancel culture" is free speech and that trying to legislate it away would be state control of speech. I don't know how they miss it, but they do.
 
I've been in private arguments with some of these people and have definitely gotten the "cancel culture and critical race theory are china attacking free speech, it's just like what happened in china" claim. They completely miss that "cancel culture" is free speech and that trying to legislate it away would be state control of speech. I don't know how they miss it, but they do.
I know these people exist...because they have to...because the right doesn't use this sort of messaging for nobody...

...but I'm frequently shocked to have confirmation that these people exist. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. I'm thankful that I don't know anyone who holds these views (which isn't to say that I don't know conservatives, because I do), or at least nobody I know has revealed to me that they hold these views.

The messaging works.

cancel culture = consequence culture
I absolutely think it's fair to bemoan the way that social media has amplified the bandwagon and that people aren't inclined to think critically, but the core of cancel culture or consequence culture is still very much free expression and freedom of association. And, as ever, crying about it won't make it go away.
 
Last edited:
Back